Treaty Balance Changes Notes

User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by zoom »

charlemagen wrote:
zoom wrote:
charlemagen wrote:Okay I am just going to make this clear, We will not be combining Treaty Patch and Sup Patch. It's not happening so please stop posting about how/why we should combine the two.

I wonder if you actually even read my posts. I am not at all asking you to do so.

was not for you at all lmao

My bad then.
No Flag charlemagen
Retired Contributor
Donator 01
Posts: 478
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
ESO: Charlemagen
Location: California

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by charlemagen »

the problem I saw with giving Otto a great bombard shipment was they could wipe out skirms just way to easy. 800 dmg with 5 splash. Along with abus and Huss it was just too much damage for onc Civ. So we thought about nerfing th great bombards range and nerfing abus dmg. But then we felt we changed them too much. My point being is I do not think the way to buff Otto is s great b shipment.

They have a huge problem dealing with over popped armies. Maybe we can look into making their mercinary shipment not cost pop.
User avatar
Germany Lukas_L99
Pro Player
Donator 01
Posts: 2059
Joined: Nov 15, 2015
ESO: Lukas_L99
Location: LĂĽbeck

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Lukas_L99 »

Gobi_Todic wrote:Hi guys, Im going to be back in some serious treaty action. After nearly 5 inactive years i kinda missed the game, its still the best imho :D :D

I really appreciate your work and effort which you put in here milky, really looking forward to it.
I would never venture to criticize the patch notes because obviously Im far away from the game yet but am I the only who isnt in love with the idea to add walls to sioux? I loved playing them and it was something which made them unique. Of course they are not competitive but that really wasnt the main reason what made them so bad. It forced you to play with your team and I loved that.
With this in mind I wish you guys GG! :mrgreen:


Really cool to see some old players coming back, PI has been playing a lot aswell recently!

charlemagen wrote:the problem I saw with giving Otto a great bombard shipment was they could wipe out skirms just way to easy. 800 dmg with 5 splash. Along with abus and Huss it was just too much damage for onc Civ. So we thought about nerfing th great bombards range and nerfing abus dmg. But then we felt we changed them too much. My point being is I do not think the way to buff Otto is s great b shipment.

They have a huge problem dealing with over popped armies. Maybe we can look into making their mercinary shipment not cost pop.


You're overestimating great bombards in my opinion. Heavy cannons do 900 damage with 4 splash versus infantry, also HC have a rate of fire of 6 while great bombards need 8 seconds to reload. Actually ottomans had the infinite bombard shipment in the old fan patch and it wasn't that overpowered.
No Flag charlemagen
Retired Contributor
Donator 01
Posts: 478
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
ESO: Charlemagen
Location: California

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by charlemagen »

Also wasn't tested hardly, just a thought I had while we were giving them the shipment
User avatar
Canada _NiceKING_
Retired Contributor
Donator 01
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sep 16, 2015
ESO: _NiceKING_
GameRanger ID: 9999999
Clan: Xbox

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by _NiceKING_ »

ocemilky wrote:Cuirassier - Now costs 130 food, 100 gold. New stats are 450 hitpoints, 26 damage (from 500 hitpoints, 30 damage). Splash removed.

I think this change should be rethought. We shouldn't create another hussar with higher hp. Cuirassier is a unique unit, available only to France, like Lancer, available only to Spain that has unique x3 bonus vs infantry. Cuirassier's splash is their uniquness. It's better to increase their pop or cost, probably both.
User avatar
United States of America Cometk
Retired Contributor
Posts: 7257
Joined: Feb 15, 2015
Location: California

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Cometk »

i think the the siege elephant changes need to be rethought as well, at least for the testing phase of the patch. changing the HP to be so low is going to make them overall worse against culverins. india's flaw is already their ability to check artillery. if we're trying to buff the siege eles, focus on making a simple buff first, rather than a buff and nerf simultaneously.

one of the few tr fp vods we have, which can be found here, shows dick's india vs matt's dutch. now here the siege elephants hadn't had their range buffed, but the hp changes had been placed in. in the vod you can see a lot of times where matt's culv mass decimates the siege eles dick has. given, if the siege eles had had the correct range, this might not have been as drastic, but this leads me back to my first paragraph. for testing purposes i think it's best to retain siege eles initial hitpoints and resistances, while changing the range and splash of the unit. this gives us a more distilled sense of how powerful the unit will be, without making potentially needless changes in the process.
Image
User avatar
Canada _NiceKING_
Retired Contributor
Donator 01
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sep 16, 2015
ESO: _NiceKING_
GameRanger ID: 9999999
Clan: Xbox

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by _NiceKING_ »

[spoiler=Interview with Magnam]When did you start playing Age of Empires III?
Actually I only started to play Age of Empires III because my father bought it for me instead of Age of Mythology which I wanted really bad as a child. ^^
Otherwise I would have probably never started to play it.
A few months later my dad bought Age of Mythology too but I liked AoE than AoM.
I had my first online game in Cctober 2010. I think before I started to play online I only played offline games vs PC. Used some cheats to get a big ass army and win.

Why Magnam?
Because only a few can wear the Magnum!
nah joke. I had Latin in school and just learned the word magnum. Since I needed a name I though it would sound cool. :)

Why do you play mostly Treaty?
When I started playing AoE3 online I got pissed everytime when someone rushed me. I wanted my big army and upgrades etc.After I got better in the game and learned to make 99 vills and stuff I tried sup again. It was fun too and I still play it sometimes, but I enjoy treaty a lot more.Just a complete different micro/macro and playstyle is needed, which is more fun for me than the sup micro/macro.

Your longest treaty game?
2 hours ++

How many civs can you play at competitive level?
I can play every no op civ. Some better and some not so good.

Which one is your favorite civ of all?
Aztecs. I really love them. But they are not really viable in high level games.

Please give us some tips on how to defeat your vicious Aztecs? ;)
70% Musketeer, 30% skirms and spam towers. That's it. Aztec can't do anything against that combo. That's why they are not really viable vs players who know how to play vs Aztecs.You need a few vills at the front and constantly build towers (outposts). Outposts are really strong. You should allways build them in your frontbase.

What are the mistakes you often make?
Fail to micro my culverins and cannons to their maximum potential.
And sometimes I focus too much on my cannons and forget to make enough other units.

The most awesomest mistake you ever made that cost you the match and have nothing but regret afterwards?
My silliest mistake was with Iros -.- I messed up my hotkeys. So instead of spamming cannons I spammed rams all the time -.- After I noticed it I started to click the cannon icon, but I somehow still often clicked rams since I was pretty new to Iro.Then I run out of wood and lost the fight horribly since rams can't fight at all.

How many enemies had you made by the time you became treaty legend? D:
I have absolutely no idea haha.

If you could return to your noob phase, anything you would change?
No, my noob phase was the best time in AoE3.Well I had 2 mates and we allways played 3vs3s with random players. We did civ combinations like double Sioux and Iro or sth like that. Was really funny :)

Will you still double Sioux with your friends?
Well it will be hard to play with them since they are not really good and teams would allways be unbalanced and stuff and there but yea I would do it :)

Would you rather sit in a mega cinema of ALL the Twilight movies or spend the whole day in a Justin Bieber concert?
Well, I would of course go into the Twilight cinema. It's dark there and I can sit so I can sleep I would not be able to sleep on a Justin Bieber concert. His voice is too damn high! ^^[/spoiler]
User avatar
No Flag Magnam
Musketeer
Posts: 81
Joined: Oct 1, 2015

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Magnam »

_NiceKING_ wrote:[spoiler=Interview with Magnam]When did you start playing Age of Empires III?
Actually I only started to play Age of Empires III because my father bought it for me instead of Age of Mythology which I wanted really bad as a child. ^^
Otherwise I would have probably never started to play it.
A few months later my dad bought Age of Mythology too but I liked AoE than AoM.
I had my first online game in Cctober 2010. I think before I started to play online I only played offline games vs PC. Used some cheats to get a big ass army and win.

Why Magnam?
Because only a few can wear the Magnum!
nah joke. I had Latin in school and just learned the word magnum. Since I needed a name I though it would sound cool. :)

Why do you play mostly Treaty?
When I started playing AoE3 online I got pissed everytime when someone rushed me. I wanted my big army and upgrades etc.After I got better in the game and learned to make 99 vills and stuff I tried sup again. It was fun too and I still play it sometimes, but I enjoy treaty a lot more.Just a complete different micro/macro and playstyle is needed, which is more fun for me than the sup micro/macro.

Your longest treaty game?
2 hours ++

How many civs can you play at competitive level?
I can play every no op civ. Some better and some not so good.

Which one is your favorite civ of all?
Aztecs. I really love them. But they are not really viable in high level games.

Please give us some tips on how to defeat your vicious Aztecs? ;)
70% Musketeer, 30% skirms and spam towers. That's it. Aztec can't do anything against that combo. That's why they are not really viable vs players who know how to play vs Aztecs.You need a few vills at the front and constantly build towers (outposts). Outposts are really strong. You should allways build them in your frontbase.

What are the mistakes you often make?
Fail to micro my culverins and cannons to their maximum potential.
And sometimes I focus too much on my cannons and forget to make enough other units.

The most awesomest mistake you ever made that cost you the match and have nothing but regret afterwards?
My silliest mistake was with Iros -.- I messed up my hotkeys. So instead of spamming cannons I spammed rams all the time -.- After I noticed it I started to click the cannon icon, but I somehow still often clicked rams since I was pretty new to Iro.Then I run out of wood and lost the fight horribly since rams can't fight at all.

How many enemies had you made by the time you became treaty legend? D:
I have absolutely no idea haha.

If you could return to your noob phase, anything you would change?
No, my noob phase was the best time in AoE3.Well I had 2 mates and we allways played 3vs3s with random players. We did civ combinations like double Sioux and Iro or sth like that. Was really funny :)

Will you still double Sioux with your friends?
Well it will be hard to play with them since they are not really good and teams would allways be unbalanced and stuff and there but yea I would do it :)

Would you rather sit in a mega cinema of ALL the Twilight movies or spend the whole day in a Justin Bieber concert?
Well, I would of course go into the Twilight cinema. It's dark there and I can sit so I can sleep I would not be able to sleep on a Justin Bieber concert. His voice is too damn high! ^^[/spoiler]


lol this still exists? :lol:
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1437
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Gichtenlord »

When did that happen? :D
r]
User avatar
No Flag Magnam
Musketeer
Posts: 81
Joined: Oct 1, 2015

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Magnam »

After I won this weird tr tournament :lol:
User avatar
Canada _NiceKING_
Retired Contributor
Donator 01
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sep 16, 2015
ESO: _NiceKING_
GameRanger ID: 9999999
Clan: Xbox

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by _NiceKING_ »

[spoiler=Otto]Image

Image

Image[/spoiler]
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1437
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Gichtenlord »

Magnam wrote:After I won this weird tr tournament :lol:


Ah, it was hosted by this xXx clan right? I forfeited at one point, but I cant remember why ... I know something happened :D
r]
User avatar
Canada _NiceKING_
Retired Contributor
Donator 01
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sep 16, 2015
ESO: _NiceKING_
GameRanger ID: 9999999
Clan: Xbox

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by _NiceKING_ »

Gichtenlord wrote:
Magnam wrote:After I won this weird tr tournament :lol:


Ah, it was hosted by this xXx clan right? I forfeited at one point, but I cant remember why ... I know something happened :D

.::X::.
User avatar
Portugal sergyou
Lancer
Posts: 636
Joined: Apr 9, 2015

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by sergyou »

Gichtenlord wrote:
Magnam wrote:After I won this weird tr tournament :lol:


Ah, it was hosted by this xXx clan right? I forfeited at one point, but I cant remember why ... I know something happened :D

u lost do magnam in the finals i think :O
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1437
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Gichtenlord »

No, I forfeited in the early rounds. Not sure if I even played a single game, because the rules forced you to play on GameRanger, if your opponent doesnt have an eso account, where it is so easy to cheat on.

Edit: I think I left, because they didnt kick storm999 from the tourney, since he was a friend from the admin, who didnt believe he was cheating.
r]
User avatar
No Flag Magnam
Musketeer
Posts: 81
Joined: Oct 1, 2015

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Magnam »

sergyou wrote:
Gichtenlord wrote:
Magnam wrote:After I won this weird tr tournament :lol:


Ah, it was hosted by this xXx clan right? I forfeited at one point, but I cant remember why ... I know something happened :D

u lost do magnam in the finals i think :O


final was vs pizza iirc
User avatar
Great Britain Panmaster
Skirmisher
Posts: 166
Joined: Jan 1, 2016

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Panmaster »

If you had to make changes even though anything not made or signed off by Ensemble is purely academic discussion since it isn't official.
Changes need to be as few as possible focussing on the overpowered civs, not removing things, not making endless changes for the sake of it, preserving civ uniqueness, 1 change per civ only:
After much thought:
1) France - "nerf" Coureur des bois from 80 population to 99 population. France was always strong because of the 120 military population. Change food from 120 to 100. Same gathering efficiency as settler. Perfect change.
2) Russia - "nerf" team duelling school from 25% to 10%. Should balance Russia in team games.
3) Japan - "nerf" Daimyo unit training card from 300%? to 100%. Ideally slow enough to force the use of buildings.
4) China - "nerf" accupuncture training card to affect only military units. Perfect change since this unique card makes consulate units instant and villagers train faster. Weakens both eco and military. China is only really strong with training speed native techs and not a true "OP civ" so only a minor change.
TAD AI Reference Guide
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1437
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Gichtenlord »

Panmaster wrote:If you had to make changes even though anything not made or signed off by Ensemble is purely academic discussion since it isn't official.
Changes need to be as few as possible focussing on the overpowered civs, not removing things, not making endless changes for the sake of it, preserving civ uniqueness, 1 change per civ only:
After much thought:
1) France - "nerf" Coureur des bois from 80 population to 99 population. France was always strong because of the 120 military population. Change food from 120 to 100. Same gathering efficiency as settler. Perfect change.
2) Russia - "nerf" team duelling school from 25% to 10%. Should balance Russia in team games.
3) Japan - "nerf" Daimyo unit training card from 300%? to 100%. Ideally slow enough to force the use of buildings.
4) China - "nerf" accupuncture training card to affect only military units. Perfect change since this unique card makes consulate units instant and villagers train faster. Weakens both eco and military. China is only really strong with training speed native techs and not a true "OP civ" so only a minor change.

1. Standardizing
2. Not a teamcard anymore
3. Did u read the notes?
4. You are so wrong
r]
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by fightinfrenchman »

Gichtenlord wrote:
Panmaster wrote:If you had to make changes even though anything not made or signed off by Ensemble is purely academic discussion since it isn't official.
Changes need to be as few as possible focussing on the overpowered civs, not removing things, not making endless changes for the sake of it, preserving civ uniqueness, 1 change per civ only:
After much thought:
1) France - "nerf" Coureur des bois from 80 population to 99 population. France was always strong because of the 120 military population. Change food from 120 to 100. Same gathering efficiency as settler. Perfect change.
2) Russia - "nerf" team duelling school from 25% to 10%. Should balance Russia in team games.
3) Japan - "nerf" Daimyo unit training card from 300%? to 100%. Ideally slow enough to force the use of buildings.
4) China - "nerf" accupuncture training card to affect only military units. Perfect change since this unique card makes consulate units instant and villagers train faster. Weakens both eco and military. China is only really strong with training speed native techs and not a true "OP civ" so only a minor change.

1. Standardizing
2. Not a teamcard anymore
3. Did u read the notes?
4. You are so wrong


Can you explain the reasoning behind removing all team cards?
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
User avatar
Canada forgrin
Howdah
Posts: 1873
Joined: Apr 27, 2015
ESO: Forgrin

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by forgrin »

fightinfrenchman wrote:
Gichtenlord wrote:
Panmaster wrote:If you had to make changes even though anything not made or signed off by Ensemble is purely academic discussion since it isn't official.
Changes need to be as few as possible focussing on the overpowered civs, not removing things, not making endless changes for the sake of it, preserving civ uniqueness, 1 change per civ only:
After much thought:
1) France - "nerf" Coureur des bois from 80 population to 99 population. France was always strong because of the 120 military population. Change food from 120 to 100. Same gathering efficiency as settler. Perfect change.
2) Russia - "nerf" team duelling school from 25% to 10%. Should balance Russia in team games.
3) Japan - "nerf" Daimyo unit training card from 300%? to 100%. Ideally slow enough to force the use of buildings.
4) China - "nerf" accupuncture training card to affect only military units. Perfect change since this unique card makes consulate units instant and villagers train faster. Weakens both eco and military. China is only really strong with training speed native techs and not a true "OP civ" so only a minor change.

1. Standardizing
2. Not a teamcard anymore
3. Did u read the notes?
4. You are so wrong


Can you explain the reasoning behind removing all team cards?


Iirc (I think it was said higher on one of the threads about the TR patch, maybe this one) it's so civs are easier to balance and you don't have to account for some randy team bonuses too. Just unnecessarily complicates the balancing issue (and some are defs too strong, Ports walls for instance).
https://www.twitch.tv/forgin14

"WTF WHERE ARE MY 10 FALCS" - AraGun_OP
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by fightinfrenchman »

forgrin wrote:
fightinfrenchman wrote:
Show hidden quotes


Can you explain the reasoning behind removing all team cards?


Iirc (I think it was said higher on one of the threads about the TR patch, maybe this one) it's so civs are easier to balance and you don't have to account for some randy team bonuses too. Just unnecessarily complicates the balancing issue (and some are defs too strong, Ports walls for instance).


I think they can be balanced without removing a fundamental aspect of team games, just lower how much they give if they're too strong.
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1437
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Gichtenlord »

fightinfrenchman wrote:
Gichtenlord wrote:
Panmaster wrote:If you had to make changes even though anything not made or signed off by Ensemble is purely academic discussion since it isn't official.
Changes need to be as few as possible focussing on the overpowered civs, not removing things, not making endless changes for the sake of it, preserving civ uniqueness, 1 change per civ only:
After much thought:
1) France - "nerf" Coureur des bois from 80 population to 99 population. France was always strong because of the 120 military population. Change food from 120 to 100. Same gathering efficiency as settler. Perfect change.
2) Russia - "nerf" team duelling school from 25% to 10%. Should balance Russia in team games.
3) Japan - "nerf" Daimyo unit training card from 300%? to 100%. Ideally slow enough to force the use of buildings.
4) China - "nerf" accupuncture training card to affect only military units. Perfect change since this unique card makes consulate units instant and villagers train faster. Weakens both eco and military. China is only really strong with training speed native techs and not a true "OP civ" so only a minor change.

1. Standardizing
2. Not a teamcard anymore
3. Did u read the notes?
4. You are so wrong


Can you explain the reasoning behind removing all team cards?


You have to know that, in general, we dont pick civs to put a strong civ combination together, but rather just pick the civ we want to play, not caring against which civ we have to play and always with randomized teams.

We rather want to balance civ in teamgames by changing the civs itselves and around maps( more trees, nats tech, certain spots they are good at, e.g. otto in nats).
Right now, some civs get a huge advantage from certain teamcards . For example, india is way better if it has germany as teammate, because they need a lot food to put pressure on their opponent and ,without the higher food gather rate, they cant really play aggressive. Similar for aztec, with a ger as teammate they can afford it to put 25 on firepit (15 vills + 10wp) without sacrifing a huge amount of eco, because it is compensated by team 2 settler wagons and team food silos.
Another big thing are 3 shot culverins: Otto, port and india have a teamcard which improves artillery hp. If u have 2 of these 3 in your team, your culverins have enough hp, in order to survive 2 shots of your opponents and culv, which makes culv wars totally unfair. Now, if u just nerfed team artillery hp card, they would be useless for their respective civ and their is almost no advantage u get out of this card. That's why we just remove the teamcard tag, so it is still decent for the respective civ.
Also in mirrors, it's just unfair if ur opponent booms 200 points higher than you, solely by having better teamcards. There is almost no way to win a mirror vs an equal skilled player in this position.
r]
User avatar
Great Britain Panmaster
Skirmisher
Posts: 166
Joined: Jan 1, 2016

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Panmaster »

Gichtenlord wrote:1. Standardizing
2. Not a teamcard anymore
3. Did u read the notes?
4. You are so wrong

You can disagree. It's just my thoughts on balancing.
This is all academic as I already put. Only Microsoft have any authority on official changes and what is "wrong". At least until they go bankrupt due to the DX12-Windows 10 store Trojan horse shenanigans, SteamOS taking off and the rights for AOE are sold.
TAD AI Reference Guide
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1437
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Gichtenlord »

Panmaster wrote:
Gichtenlord wrote:1. Standardizing
2. Not a teamcard anymore
3. Did u read the notes?
4. You are so wrong

You can disagree. It's just my thoughts on balancing.
This is all academic as I already put. Only Microsoft have any authority on official changes and what is "wrong". At least until they go bankrupt due to the DX12-Windows 10 store Trojan horse shenanigans, SteamOS taking off and the rights for AOE are sold.

If they ever did a remake of aoe3, the developers would listen to the community, since they dont know anything of the current meta and it would take them too much time to catch up.
r]
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by fightinfrenchman »

Gichtenlord wrote:
fightinfrenchman wrote:
Show hidden quotes


Can you explain the reasoning behind removing all team cards?


You have to know that, in general, we dont pick civs to put a strong civ combination together, but rather just pick the civ we want to play, not caring against which civ we have to play and always with randomized teams.

We rather want to balance civ in teamgames by changing the civs itselves and around maps( more trees, nats tech, certain spots they are good at, e.g. otto in nats).
Right now, some civs get a huge advantage from certain teamcards . For example, india is way better if it has germany as teammate, because they need a lot food to put pressure on their opponent and ,without the higher food gather rate, they cant really play aggressive. Similar for aztec, with a ger as teammate they can afford it to put 25 on firepit (15 vills + 10wp) without sacrifing a huge amount of eco, because it is compensated by team 2 settler wagons and team food silos.
Another big thing are 3 shot culverins: Otto, port and india have a teamcard which improves artillery hp. If u have 2 of these 3 in your team, your culverins have enough hp, in order to survive 2 shots of your opponents and culv, which makes culv wars totally unfair. Now, if u just nerfed team artillery hp card, they would be useless for their respective civ and their is almost no advantage u get out of this card. That's why we just remove the teamcard tag, so it is still decent for the respective civ.
Also in mirrors, it's just unfair if ur opponent booms 200 points higher than you, solely by having better teamcards. There is almost no way to win a mirror vs an equal skilled player in this position.


I think the cards can be balanced to not give too much of a benefit without removing them completely. This makes team games less strategic.
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV